Current Events > Is It Time To Change the Undergraduate Curriculum?

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.3742

The tl;dr is that our style of forcing students to take gen eds they don't need/want is not preparing them for the modern global economy, and that allowing students to take more of what they want/need is the best way to update education. We need education that is relevant, affordable, and effective...and random stupid gen eds that people are obligated to take is just standing in the way of those things.

@The_Admiral

Thoughts? Since you've had to hire college undergrads before.
---

bump
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xe6nLVXEC0
---

As someone not following the American system (Germany)

I'd like a bit more flexibility in my courses. Not necessarily Gen Ed courses, but maybe cool courses from other subjects, both technical and non-technical
---

teepan95 posted...

As someone not following the American system (Germany)

I'd like a bit more flexibility in my courses. Not necessarily Gen Ed courses, but maybe cool courses from other subjects, both technical and non-technical

I did a CS undergraduate program and I wish I could've taken more CS electives, to be honest. A huge chunk of the time I spent in college (and the money it cost me) had nothing to do with CS.

Imo college students spend too much precious time and money learning stuff that doesn't matter/doesn't interest them.
---

Yeah I can agree that too much time is spent on GE. If college students could pick a major, complete it in 2 years and move on then college would be a lot less expensive and probably much more effective.

I don't think my courses were 100% major courses until like my last 2 semesters.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Imo college students spend too much precious time and money learning stuff that doesn't matter/doesn't interest them.

I guess it's a case of 'the grass is greener'. Maybe a solution in the middle would be the best.

I will say for the record, that American higher education is all kinds of shitty, not in the least due to insufficient government spending on education.
---

MC_BatCommander posted...

Yeah I can agree that too much time is spent on GE. If college students could pick a major, complete it in 2 years and move on then college would be a lot less expensive and probably much more effective.

I don't think my courses were 100% major courses until like my last 2 semesters.

Yeah, there's no reason why most undergraduate programs can't be completed in 2 years. Would be way less costly for sure. Both in terms of resources and time.

teepan95 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Imo college students spend too much precious time and money learning stuff that doesn't matter/doesn't interest them.

I guess it's a case of 'the grass is greener'. Maybe a solution in the middle would be the best.

I will say for the record, that American higher education is all kinds of shitty, not in the least due to insufficient government spending on education.

It is delusional to say we don't spend enough on education. Our government spends a ton of money on education.
---

I oppose the idea of turning universities in general into mere technical schools where students study one subject and neglect all other areas of learning. That sort of narrow vision of education is harmful in my opinion and goes far to explain why our society is generally ignorant of the various areas that used to constitute a liberal education. Most college students today have a terrible, biased sense of history, no more than a cursory understanding of philosophy, and have a completely negligent knowledge of religion and theology, despite living in one of the most religious Western nations.

That said, one of the perks of our system is that there are many different types of universities with different programs and systems so students can seek out those that best fit their needs. Trying to devise a one size fits all programs is going to be unpalatable and unworkable.
---

The problem is mostly in how kids at 17-18 aren't really sure about what their life plan with a possible degree is plus how if you're able to get into a respectable 4 year college from the jump...for better or worse most kids will think that's the better idea. For example, getting a 4 year liberal arts degree, or really any degree that isn't specifically STEM, can seem useless to a lot of people, but if you have a clear plan of going to law school, etc., then it makes sense. But it is important to realize that a lot of 'good' career paths outside of STEM in 4 year colleges will probably require something like at least a 6-7 year higher education commitment overall. If you want a college degree or certification that will lead relatively fast into a job or don't have a long term academic plan in place, you should go to community college, which will have maybe have 1 or 2 'fluff' courses but is mostly geared towards actually getting employed and won't throw a lot of extra bullshit at you - also, this option is way cheaper.
---

Callixtus posted...

I oppose the idea of turning universities in general into mere technical schools where students study one subject and neglect all other areas of learning. That sort of narrow vision of education is harmful in my opinion and goes far to explain why our society is generally ignorant of the various areas that used to constitute a liberal education. Most college students today have a terrible, biased sense of history, no more than a cursory understanding of philosophy, and have a completely negligent knowledge of religion and theology, despite living in one of the most religious Western nations.

That said, one of the perks of our system is that there are many different types of universities with different programs and systems so students can seek out those that best fit their needs. Trying to devise a one size fits all programs is going to be unpalatable and unworkable.

There are more people in college than ever before, and clearly it hasn't helped much with societal ignorance. And we're talking about precious years and resources. People can learn more liberal things on their own time and dollar if they want it.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

MC_BatCommander posted...

Yeah I can agree that too much time is spent on GE. If college students could pick a major, complete it in 2 years and move on then college would be a lot less expensive and probably much more effective.

I don't think my courses were 100% major courses until like my last 2 semesters.

Yeah, there's no reason why most undergraduate programs can't be completed in 2 years. Would be way less costly for sure. Both in terms of resources and time.

teepan95 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Imo college students spend too much precious time and money learning stuff that doesn't matter/doesn't interest them.

I guess it's a case of 'the grass is greener'. Maybe a solution in the middle would be the best.

I will say for the record, that American higher education is all kinds of shitty, not in the least due to insufficient government spending on education.

It is delusional to say we don't spend enough on education. Our government spends a ton of money on education.

So why is college so expensive? The UK has excellent universities, and the the average cost is 9000 per year (which you get as a loan and generally don't pay back). Germany has excellent universities, and the average cost is only 500 per year (which, once again, you can get loaned/as a grant). Among developed countries, it's only the US (to my knowledge) that has wealth as a barrier to higher education, as opposed to academic standards.

Also, imo 2 years are too few. The author of the article mentions the UK, most undergraduate courses in the UK are 3 years.
---

Smh non-STEM majors and their self-inflicted problems
---

Those gen ED classes don't need to end, but they probably need to be done better in highschool or there should be a push to have people take them in community college.
I know for me, regardless of if I had gen Ed requirements or not, i still wouldn't have started real electrical engineering classes until the later half of my second year. That's mainly because of math requirements. I still needed to spend 3 to 4 semesters taking multiple calculus classes and other math classes that are pre reqs of each other.
---

I'm not a nut who thinks all geneds need to be eliminated, but there are too many. At my university, every student had to take two years of English/Literature. One year (or a semester of each) would have been more than enough. Similar issue with all majors being required to take a year of any science. It'd be far more logical to create a one-semester "non major" version of the class. Like, why did one of my friends (who was studying CS) need to take eight credit hours worth of Biology?

Of course, all geneds (and even major requirements) are designed to extract money from students. Math majors had to take an introductory programming class (learning to do C++). Why? There is zero reason for that other than to get that extra tuition money (and all of the associated fees).

education =/= job training

If a person's only desire in life is to prepare yourself to be a worker for a company then I guess this would be right up their alley, but in my opinion the whole point of education is to help you grow as a person and expose you to the vast body of knowledge around you.

The worst thing you could do is get rid of gen eds and allow people to only select classes that are relevant to their desired career path, because then they're going to spend years of their life learning nothing but that which they want to or what comes easy to them, and that doesn't create a well-rounded person. I did a similar thing to this when I was in school and it came back to bite me years later.

Besides, what can you really learn about a career from college? Nothing can prepare you for a career as much as actually working in it. Furthermore, what if a person decides they don't like career X, and then they just wasted 4 years job training for a career they don't even want?
---

_Rinku_ posted...

Of course, all geneds (and even major requirements) are designed to extract money from students. Math majors had to take an introductory programming class (learning to do C++). Why? There is zero reason for that other than to get that extra tuition money (and all of the associated fees).

Ehh, that makes sense to me. Software and programming is used in math quite a lot.
---

teepan95 posted...

So why is college so expensive? The UK has excellent universities, and the the average cost is 9000 per year (which you get as a loan and generally don't pay back). Germany has excellent universities, and the average cost is only 500 per year (which, once again, you can get loaned/as a grant). Among developed countries, it's only the US (to my knowledge) that has wealth as a barrier to higher education, as opposed to academic standards.

Also, imo 2 years are too few. The author of the article mentions the UK, most undergraduate courses in the UK are 3 years.

Uh the university I went to was a lot cheaper than 9000 pounds. Not sure why you think it's so expensive. here.

Germany has much higher taxes. That's why Germany's education is so "cheap"
---

I don't know what other colleges are like, but at my school you spent roughly a year (assuming you weren't switching colleges) doing Gen Ed classes, so it wasn't that much of a time sink.

If anything, I think colleges should do more to stress internships and volunteering opportunities to prepare students for life after college.

Romulox28 posted...

education =/= job training

If a person's only desire in life is to prepare yourself to be a worker for a company then I guess this would be right up their alley, but in my opinion the whole point of education is to help you grow as a person and expose you to the vast body of knowledge around you.

The worst thing you could do is get rid of gen eds and allow people to only select classes that are relevant to their desired career path, because then they're going to spend years of their life learning nothing but that which they want to or what comes easy to them, and that doesn't create a well-rounded person. I did a similar thing to this when I was in school and it came back to bite me years later.

Besides, what can you really learn about a career from college? Nothing can prepare you for a career as much as actually working in it. Furthermore, what if a person decides they don't like career X, and then they just wasted 4 years job training for a career they don't even want?

lmao shut the fuck up

people have limited time and resources. obligating them to things useless to their desired path is not fair to their time and resources, or to other people's time and resources.

public education has clearly dropped the ball on the "growing as a person" poppycock. that sounds lofty and enlightened and intellectual and good but in reality, people get educated to function in society. that means careers and work first and foremost.
---

My father and mother went through the "you choose early and choose for life" UK systems, and often state they wished they had been able to learn more about other fields.My ability to take classes outside my major was what led me to a very fulfilling career in psychology/therapy - had I stayed in materials engineering, I might have just resigned/dropped out after some years. (Anecdotal I know)

I might have missed it, but does the article have a study or empirical reasons for moving from US to UK systems? All I saw was a few anecdotes, and then jumping to possible ways to change....

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Callixtus posted...

I oppose the idea of turning universities in general into mere technical schools where students study one subject and neglect all other areas of learning. That sort of narrow vision of education is harmful in my opinion and goes far to explain why our society is generally ignorant of the various areas that used to constitute a liberal education. Most college students today have a terrible, biased sense of history, no more than a cursory understanding of philosophy, and have a completely negligent knowledge of religion and theology, despite living in one of the most religious Western nations.

That said, one of the perks of our system is that there are many different types of universities with different programs and systems so students can seek out those that best fit their needs. Trying to devise a one size fits all programs is going to be unpalatable and unworkable.

There are more people in college than ever before, and clearly it hasn't helped much with societal ignorance. And we're talking about precious years and resources. People can learn more liberal things on their own time and dollar if they want it.

That's assuming that a layman can jump into these subjects and actually learn something of value without an instructor, which is a large assumption.

But the greater point is that some level of knowledge in these areas is necessary for building good citizens, and something is lost when education is transformed entirely from this purpose towards merely obtaining employment, which of course is an important goal as well.
---

Ruvan22 posted...

My father and mother went through the "you choose early and choose for life" UK systems, and often state they wished they had been able to learn more about other fields.My ability to take classes outside my major was what led me to a very fulfilling career in psychology/therapy - had I stayed in materials engineering, I might have just resigned/dropped out after some years. (Anecdotal I know)

I might have missed it, but does the article have a study or empirical reasons for moving from US to UK systems? All I saw was a few anecdotes, and then jumping to possible ways to change....

why didn't they just take classes on their own dime? or read some books or join some workshops? why is forcing everyone into useless/irrelevant material that costs time and money the way to get people to explore other things?
---

Callixtus posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Callixtus posted...

I oppose the idea of turning universities in general into mere technical schools where students study one subject and neglect all other areas of learning. That sort of narrow vision of education is harmful in my opinion and goes far to explain why our society is generally ignorant of the various areas that used to constitute a liberal education. Most college students today have a terrible, biased sense of history, no more than a cursory understanding of philosophy, and have a completely negligent knowledge of religion and theology, despite living in one of the most religious Western nations.

That said, one of the perks of our system is that there are many different types of universities with different programs and systems so students can seek out those that best fit their needs. Trying to devise a one size fits all programs is going to be unpalatable and unworkable.

There are more people in college than ever before, and clearly it hasn't helped much with societal ignorance. And we're talking about precious years and resources. People can learn more liberal things on their own time and dollar if they want it.

That's assuming that a layman can jump into these subjects and actually learn something of value without an instructor, which is a large assumption.

But the greater point is that some level of knowledge in these areas is necessary for building good citizens, and something is lost when education is transformed entirely from this purpose towards merely obtaining employment, which of course is an important goal as well.

the majority of people can learn about other areas without spending time and money to listen to an instructor. there's youtube, there are books, there are workshops.
---

Romulox28 posted...

The worst thing you could do is get rid of gen eds and allow people to only select classes that are relevant to their desired career path, because then they're going to spend years of their life learning nothing but that which they want to or what comes easy to them, and that doesn't create a well-rounded person. I did a similar thing to this when I was in school and it came back to bite me years later.

My other fear would be that if gen ed requirements are eliminated entirely, then employers will gain a lot more power in selecting the students that they hire. They would essentially be able to dictate the classes that students have to take even more than they could now, and further push the burden of training students onto the university when this traditionally was the task of the employer.
---

emblem boy posted...

_Rinku_ posted...

Of course, all geneds (and even major requirements) are designed to extract money from students. Math majors had to take an introductory programming class (learning to do C++). Why? There is zero reason for that other than to get that extra tuition money (and all of the associated fees).

Ehh, that makes sense to me. Software and programming is used in math quite a lot.

Okay, fair enough. I meant more at the undergraduate level. You can pick up some programming knowledge once you get to grad school (I have a (psychology) friend whose PhD advisor made her learn Fortran, for example) . It's not like you're going to do anything with a bachelor's in mathematics (unless you teach high school).

Also, realistically, taking just one introductory CS class isn't going to help most people. It won't teach you the programming fundamentals that make it easy to pick up new languages. It won't give you enough raw skill/practice with whatever language you were taught in to do anything practical with it. It's pointless on its own.

Callixtus posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Callixtus posted...

I oppose the idea of turning universities in general into mere technical schools where students study one subject and neglect all other areas of learning. That sort of narrow vision of education is harmful in my opinion and goes far to explain why our society is generally ignorant of the various areas that used to constitute a liberal education. Most college students today have a terrible, biased sense of history, no more than a cursory understanding of philosophy, and have a completely negligent knowledge of religion and theology, despite living in one of the most religious Western nations.

That said, one of the perks of our system is that there are many different types of universities with different programs and systems so students can seek out those that best fit their needs. Trying to devise a one size fits all programs is going to be unpalatable and unworkable.

There are more people in college than ever before, and clearly it hasn't helped much with societal ignorance. And we're talking about precious years and resources. People can learn more liberal things on their own time and dollar if they want it.

That's assuming that a layman can jump into these subjects and actually learn something of value without an instructor, which is a large assumption.

But the greater point is that some level of knowledge in these areas is necessary for building good citizens, and something is lost when education is transformed entirely from this purpose towards merely obtaining employment, which of course is an important goal as well.

If those things are so important for building good citizens, they should probably be highly stressed before college as well.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

teepan95 posted...

So why is college so expensive? The UK has excellent universities, and the the average cost is 9000 per year (which you get as a loan and generally don't pay back). Germany has excellent universities, and the average cost is only 500 per year (which, once again, you can get loaned/as a grant). Among developed countries, it's only the US (to my knowledge) that has wealth as a barrier to higher education, as opposed to academic standards.

Also, imo 2 years are too few. The author of the article mentions the UK, most undergraduate courses in the UK are 3 years.

Uh the university I went to was a lot cheaper than 9000 pounds. Not sure why you think it's so expensive. here.

Germany has much higher taxes. That's why Germany's education is so "cheap"

Last I checked, the current tuition fees in the UK were 9 grand a year. I should know, I was about to have to pay them

So what's wrong with that? Taxes fund education, which in turn funds the improvement of the country. The ultimate form of patriotism, imo.
---

Let's not turn this topic into a tax topic. You'll just start giving proudclad a boner or something...
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Romulox28 posted...

education =/= job training

If a person's only desire in life is to prepare yourself to be a worker for a company then I guess this would be right up their alley, but in my opinion the whole point of education is to help you grow as a person and expose you to the vast body of knowledge around you.

The worst thing you could do is get rid of gen eds and allow people to only select classes that are relevant to their desired career path, because then they're going to spend years of their life learning nothing but that which they want to or what comes easy to them, and that doesn't create a well-rounded person. I did a similar thing to this when I was in school and it came back to bite me years later.

Besides, what can you really learn about a career from college? Nothing can prepare you for a career as much as actually working in it. Furthermore, what if a person decides they don't like career X, and then they just wasted 4 years job training for a career they don't even want?

lmao shut the fuck up

people have limited time and resources. obligating them to things useless to their desired path is not fair to their time and resources, or to other people's time and resources.

public education has clearly dropped the ball on the "growing as a person" poppycock. that sounds lofty and enlightened and intellectual and good but in reality, people get educated to function in society. that means careers and work first and foremost.

lol why are you so angry? I guess you find it hard to believe but there are people who go to college and learn about things in the world beyond Microsoft Excel, and that helps in their personal development. it's also kind of funny that you seem to think that the period of ages 18 - 22 for people is so incredibly crucial that they cannot waste a second learning about history or politics, it must be all SAP demos.
---

emblem boy posted...

Callixtus posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Callixtus posted...

I oppose the idea of turning universities in general into mere technical schools where students study one subject and neglect all other areas of learning. That sort of narrow vision of education is harmful in my opinion and goes far to explain why our society is generally ignorant of the various areas that used to constitute a liberal education. Most college students today have a terrible, biased sense of history, no more than a cursory understanding of philosophy, and have a completely negligent knowledge of religion and theology, despite living in one of the most religious Western nations.

That said, one of the perks of our system is that there are many different types of universities with different programs and systems so students can seek out those that best fit their needs. Trying to devise a one size fits all programs is going to be unpalatable and unworkable.

There are more people in college than ever before, and clearly it hasn't helped much with societal ignorance. And we're talking about precious years and resources. People can learn more liberal things on their own time and dollar if they want it.

That's assuming that a layman can jump into these subjects and actually learn something of value without an instructor, which is a large assumption.

But the greater point is that some level of knowledge in these areas is necessary for building good citizens, and something is lost when education is transformed entirely from this purpose towards merely obtaining employment, which of course is an important goal as well.

If those things are so important for building good citizens, they should probably be highly stressed before college as well.

I don't disagree, at all. But if the purpose of universities is no longer to be at least in part building good citizens, what institution will be left to do this? High schools where students are just leaving childhood? Churches where attendance is constantly in decline?

Universities are the only credible institution left to give students a foundational education. And yes they are failing, in my opinion, because they have already in large part abandoned the goal of creating open-minded citizens because they've surrendered on the one hand to the call of technical training and on the other to self-serving left wing activism.
---

teepan95 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

teepan95 posted...

So why is college so expensive? The UK has excellent universities, and the the average cost is 9000 per year (which you get as a loan and generally don't pay back). Germany has excellent universities, and the average cost is only 500 per year (which, once again, you can get loaned/as a grant). Among developed countries, it's only the US (to my knowledge) that has wealth as a barrier to higher education, as opposed to academic standards.

Also, imo 2 years are too few. The author of the article mentions the UK, most undergraduate courses in the UK are 3 years.

Uh the university I went to was a lot cheaper than 9000 pounds. Not sure why you think it's so expensive. here.

Germany has much higher taxes. That's why Germany's education is so "cheap"

Last I checked, the current tuition fees in the UK were 9 grand a year. I should know, I was about to have to pay them

So what's wrong with that? Taxes fund education, which in turn funds the improvement of the country. The ultimate form of patriotism, imo.

9000 pounds comes out to what, 12,000 USD per year? You can find many universities that are a lot cheaper than that here.

As for contributing even more taxes to "fund education"...that's an ideologue's question. It sounds good to fund education but what really happens under the hood is that the institutions that get a blank check from the government just become bloated and inefficient.

And it's not someone else's obligation to pay for my education and to make me a competitor in the labor market. If I want education, I can pay for it myself and work for it myself. My view of government is that its responsibilities are to be limited to national defense and some public infrastructure that we need to function. It's not its job to take my livelihood and give it to someone else's education fund lol.

btw I don't care about patriotism, and neither do most liberals who routinely badmouth it by calling it nationalism.
---

Romulox28 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Romulox28 posted...

education =/= job training

If a person's only desire in life is to prepare yourself to be a worker for a company then I guess this would be right up their alley, but in my opinion the whole point of education is to help you grow as a person and expose you to the vast body of knowledge around you.

The worst thing you could do is get rid of gen eds and allow people to only select classes that are relevant to their desired career path, because then they're going to spend years of their life learning nothing but that which they want to or what comes easy to them, and that doesn't create a well-rounded person. I did a similar thing to this when I was in school and it came back to bite me years later.

Besides, what can you really learn about a career from college? Nothing can prepare you for a career as much as actually working in it. Furthermore, what if a person decides they don't like career X, and then they just wasted 4 years job training for a career they don't even want?

lmao shut the fuck up

people have limited time and resources. obligating them to things useless to their desired path is not fair to their time and resources, or to other people's time and resources.

public education has clearly dropped the ball on the "growing as a person" poppycock. that sounds lofty and enlightened and intellectual and good but in reality, people get educated to function in society. that means careers and work first and foremost.

lol why are you so angry? I guess you find it hard to believe but there are people who go to college and learn about things in the world beyond Microsoft Excel, and that helps in their personal development. it's also kind of funny that you seem to think that the period of ages 18 - 22 for people is so incredibly crucial that they cannot waste a second learning about history or politics, it must be all SAP demos.

how is your perspective working for ya? record number of college students these days, and yet it's only been a disaster for the labor market and most people aren't learning anything useful anyway. what personal development are you talking about?

young people should be learning productive and useful things at an advanced rate. public education right now is stunting their mental and emotional maturity, due to how slow and bloated and useless most of it is. we could get kids to the same level of education much faster if we actually taught critical thinking, life skills, math, engineering, etc. there's no reason why someone needs to spend 25 years in the public education system in order to be capable of being a functional adult in society lol.
---

If college wasn't so damned expensive then I'd be more on board with the idea of requiring a "well-rounded" education because I see how that has merit. However, it is too damned expensive, and so that time and money spent on general eds and not on their major comes with a great cost, particularly when you think of the opportunity cost of the classes that could be taken instead that could teach more direct career skills.

It's a shame college became a scam in America.
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

If college wasn't so damned expensive then I'd be more on board with the idea of requiring a "well-rounded" education because I see how that has merit. However, it is too damned expensive, and so that time and money spent on general eds and not on their major comes with a great cost, particularly when you think of the opportunity cost of the classes that could be taken instead that could teach more direct career skills.

It's a shame college became a scam in America.

Ironically the reason it's so expensive is because of ideologues who demanded it be "well-rounded" and "required" lol
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

teepan95 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

teepan95 posted...

So why is college so expensive? The UK has excellent universities, and the the average cost is 9000 per year (which you get as a loan and generally don't pay back). Germany has excellent universities, and the average cost is only 500 per year (which, once again, you can get loaned/as a grant). Among developed countries, it's only the US (to my knowledge) that has wealth as a barrier to higher education, as opposed to academic standards.

Also, imo 2 years are too few. The author of the article mentions the UK, most undergraduate courses in the UK are 3 years.

Uh the university I went to was a lot cheaper than 9000 pounds. Not sure why you think it's so expensive. here.

Germany has much higher taxes. That's why Germany's education is so "cheap"

Last I checked, the current tuition fees in the UK were 9 grand a year. I should know, I was about to have to pay them

So what's wrong with that? Taxes fund education, which in turn funds the improvement of the country. The ultimate form of patriotism, imo.

9000 pounds comes out to what, 12,000 USD per year? You can find many universities that are a lot cheaper than that here.

As for contributing even more taxes to "fund education"...that's an ideologue's question. It sounds good to fund education but what really happens under the hood is that the institutions that get a blank check from the government just become bloated and inefficient.

And it's not someone else's obligation to pay for my education and to make me a competitor in the labor market. If I want education, I can pay for it myself and work for it myself. My view of government is that its responsibilities are to be limited to national defense and some public infrastructure that we need to function. It's not its job to take my livelihood and give it to someone else's education fund lol.

btw I don't care about patriotism, and neither do most liberals who routinely badmouth it by calling it nationalism.

Fair enough. I disagree with you a lot, though.

Having said that, wrt to this topic we both seem to be in favour of an education reform in the US, so there's that, I guess.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

how is your perspective working for ya? record number of college students these days, and yet it's only been a disaster for the labor market and most people aren't learning anything useful anyway. what personal development are you talking about?

I'd say pretty good lol. I enjoyed the courses I took in college and I miss being exposed to lots of different topics and studying new things each semester.

FLUFFYGERM posted...

young people should be learning productive and useful things at an advanced rate. public education right now is stunting their mental and emotional maturity, due to how slow and bloated and useless most of it is. we could get kids to the same level of education much faster if we actually taught critical thinking, life skills, math, engineering, etc. there's no reason why someone needs to spend 25 years in the public education system in order to be capable of being a functional adult in society lol.

So what do you deem as productive and useful things? Sounds like you want everyone to just get STEM degrees and not learn anything else outside of it.
---

Romulox28 posted...

I'd say pretty good lol. I enjoyed the courses I took in college and I miss being exposed to lots of different topics and studying new things each semester.

didn't you recently complain about not making enough money and not having enough marketable skills? the same is true for most people graduating from college. they wasted 4 damn years taking useless classes that didn't teach them anything at all of any real value.

so well-rounded LMAO

Romulox28 posted...

So what do you deem as productive and useful things? Sounds like you want everyone to just get STEM degrees and not learn anything else outside of it.

critical thinking skills, life skills, engineering, math, science, law, accounting, medicine, etc. most other things like sociology and psychology can be learned individually (to the point of piquing interest) and then pursued by people who want to pursue them.

there's no reason why someone who is studying accounting should be forced to take a sociology class in order to graduate. especially not when it represents 4 and a half months of time and thousands of dollars of costs lmao.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Sativa_Rose posted...

If college wasn't so damned expensive then I'd be more on board with the idea of requiring a "well-rounded" education because I see how that has merit. However, it is too damned expensive, and so that time and money spent on general eds and not on their major comes with a great cost, particularly when you think of the opportunity cost of the classes that could be taken instead that could teach more direct career skills.

It's a shame college became a scam in America.

Ironically the reason it's so expensive is because of ideologues who demanded it be "well-rounded" and "required" lol

Isn't it more because of the student loan program creating an incentive for colleges to keep raising the costs year after year? I thought gen ed requirements had been around for a long time, even back when college was a lot cheaper.
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Sativa_Rose posted...

If college wasn't so damned expensive then I'd be more on board with the idea of requiring a "well-rounded" education because I see how that has merit. However, it is too damned expensive, and so that time and money spent on general eds and not on their major comes with a great cost, particularly when you think of the opportunity cost of the classes that could be taken instead that could teach more direct career skills.

It's a shame college became a scam in America.

Ironically the reason it's so expensive is because of ideologues who demanded it be "well-rounded" and "required" lol

Isn't it more because of the student loan program creating an incentive for colleges to keep raising the costs year after year? I thought gen ed requirements had been around for a long time, even back when college was a lot cheaper.

Yes, but who was it who began to equate a college degree with being more educated and well-rounded?
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Yes, but who was it who began to equate a college degree with being more educated and well-rounded?
---

Wasn't that the original intent of college from the beginning?

emblem boy posted...

Those gen ED classes don't need to end, but they probably need to be done better in highschool or there should be a push to have people take them in community college.
I know for me, regardless of if I had gen Ed requirements or not, i still wouldn't have started real electrical engineering classes until the later half of my second year. That's mainly because of math requirements. I still needed to spend 3 to 4 semesters taking multiple calculus classes and other math classes that are pre reqs of each other.

Thinking about it some more, even with some majors needing pre reqs that n end up stretching out the length of the degree, having less side classes would allow for the major classes to be taken at a faster rate, so that'd be good.
---

Callixtus posted...

emblem boy posted...

Callixtus posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Callixtus posted...

I oppose the idea of turning universities in general into mere technical schools where students study one subject and neglect all other areas of learning. That sort of narrow vision of education is harmful in my opinion and goes far to explain why our society is generally ignorant of the various areas that used to constitute a liberal education. Most college students today have a terrible, biased sense of history, no more than a cursory understanding of philosophy, and have a completely negligent knowledge of religion and theology, despite living in one of the most religious Western nations.

That said, one of the perks of our system is that there are many different types of universities with different programs and systems so students can seek out those that best fit their needs. Trying to devise a one size fits all programs is going to be unpalatable and unworkable.

There are more people in college than ever before, and clearly it hasn't helped much with societal ignorance. And we're talking about precious years and resources. People can learn more liberal things on their own time and dollar if they want it.

That's assuming that a layman can jump into these subjects and actually learn something of value without an instructor, which is a large assumption.

But the greater point is that some level of knowledge in these areas is necessary for building good citizens, and something is lost when education is transformed entirely from this purpose towards merely obtaining employment, which of course is an important goal as well.

If those things are so important for building good citizens, they should probably be highly stressed before college as well.

I don't disagree, at all. But if the purpose of universities is no longer to be at least in part building good citizens, what institution will be left to do this? High schools where students are just leaving childhood? Churches where attendance is constantly in decline?

Universities are the only credible institution left to give students a foundational education. And yes they are failing, in my opinion, because they have already in large part abandoned the goal of creating open-minded citizens because they've surrendered on the one hand to the call of technical training and on the other to self-serving left wing activism.

Why not highschool? A 16-18 year old should for sure be learning these things.
---

emblem boy posted...

Callixtus posted...

emblem boy posted...

Callixtus posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Callixtus posted...

I oppose the idea of turning universities in general into mere technical schools where students study one subject and neglect all other areas of learning. That sort of narrow vision of education is harmful in my opinion and goes far to explain why our society is generally ignorant of the various areas that used to constitute a liberal education. Most college students today have a terrible, biased sense of history, no more than a cursory understanding of philosophy, and have a completely negligent knowledge of religion and theology, despite living in one of the most religious Western nations.

That said, one of the perks of our system is that there are many different types of universities with different programs and systems so students can seek out those that best fit their needs. Trying to devise a one size fits all programs is going to be unpalatable and unworkable.

There are more people in college than ever before, and clearly it hasn't helped much with societal ignorance. And we're talking about precious years and resources. People can learn more liberal things on their own time and dollar if they want it.

That's assuming that a layman can jump into these subjects and actually learn something of value without an instructor, which is a large assumption.

But the greater point is that some level of knowledge in these areas is necessary for building good citizens, and something is lost when education is transformed entirely from this purpose towards merely obtaining employment, which of course is an important goal as well.

If those things are so important for building good citizens, they should probably be highly stressed before college as well.

I don't disagree, at all. But if the purpose of universities is no longer to be at least in part building good citizens, what institution will be left to do this? High schools where students are just leaving childhood? Churches where attendance is constantly in decline?

Universities are the only credible institution left to give students a foundational education. And yes they are failing, in my opinion, because they have already in large part abandoned the goal of creating open-minded citizens because they've surrendered on the one hand to the call of technical training and on the other to self-serving left wing activism.

Why not highschool? A 16-18 year old should for sure be learning these things.

Of course they could. But high school students are dealing with a variety of challenges both educational and developmental, that precludes them from substituting the role that universities are supposed to play, and certainly lack the resources to even plausibly claim to do so.
---

Callixtus posted...

Of course they could. But high school students are dealing with a variety of challenges both educational and developmental, that precludes them from substituting the role that universities are supposed to play, and certainly lack the resources to even plausibly claim to do so.

They'd be in an environment where most would live at home, little financial obligations and worry, support network from being around parents, teachers, and friends.

I get what you're saying, but I think you make it sound tougher than it should be
---

Romulox28 posted...

education =/= job training

We managed to kill off most of the trade schools in the latter half of the Obama administration, after stigmatizing them for decades.

emblem boy posted...

Callixtus posted...

Of course they could. But high school students are dealing with a variety of challenges both educational and developmental, that precludes them from substituting the role that universities are supposed to play, and certainly lack the resources to even plausibly claim to do so.

They'd be in an environment where most would live at home, little financial obligations and worry, support network from being around parents, teachers, and friends.

I get what you're saying, but I think you make it sound tougher than it should be

Most high school students don't have the critical thinking skills necessary to engage with serious ideas and even fewer have the requisite knowledge to do so because its still in large part foundational learning.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Ruvan22 posted...

My father and mother went through the "you choose early and choose for life" UK systems, and often state they wished they had been able to learn more about other fields.My ability to take classes outside my major was what led me to a very fulfilling career in psychology/therapy - had I stayed in materials engineering, I might have just resigned/dropped out after some years. (Anecdotal I know)

I might have missed it, but does the article have a study or empirical reasons for moving from US to UK systems? All I saw was a few anecdotes, and then jumping to possible ways to change....

why didn't they just take classes on their own dime? or read some books or join some workshops? why is forcing everyone into useless/irrelevant material that costs time and money the way to get people to explore other things?

This was in the 1970s in southeast Asia, so A) The opportunities to learn about such things in a setting outside school/university were very limited, and B) Their classwork took up a LOT of time

Also, from your post and others in this thread, you seem REALLY hostile about this topic.

FLUFFYGERM posted...

didn't you recently complain about not making enough money and not having enough marketable skills? the same is true for most people graduating from college. they wasted 4 damn years taking useless classes that didn't teach them anything at all of any real value.

so well-rounded LMAO

lol, there is the proudclad we know and love. makes a topic intended to open up a discussion on this forum and as soon as i post an even marginally dissenting opinion your first reply is "fuck you" and then 3 posts later you are launching a personal attack on me based on the one element of my private life i shared on CE. bravo buddy, with these fantastic social skills you must have a very satisfying life.

the funny thing is that i actually have a STEM degree too, I just did not like working in STEM lol
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Romulox28 posted...

education =/= job training

We managed to kill off most of the trade schools in the latter half of the Obama administration, after stigmatizing them for decades.

Honestly, what trades could you learn nowadays that won't be replaced with automation in a few decades?

I'm genuinely curious. It seems likely that young people working in trades these days will suddenly be screwed at 40-50 like a lot of American blue color workers.
---

Jabodie posted...

Honestly, what trades could you learn nowadays that won't be replaced with automation in a few decades?

I'm genuinely curious. It seems likely that young people working in trades these days will suddenly be screwed at 40-50 like a lot of American blue color workers.

HVAC, electrical, nursing, paralegal, maybe even robot repair.
Basically anything that can't be automated easily.